Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

jacks1071 wrote: Simple, your LBS is working on a SMALLER margin than the overseas company. Why are they still running? You'd have to ask them that question.

considering they've been running for over 200 years, perhaps they have a better business model or they don't need such a large margin

usernameforme wrote:

jacks1071 wrote: Simple, your LBS is working on a SMALLER margin than the overseas company. Why are they still running? You'd have to ask them that question.

considering they've been running for over 200 years, perhaps they have a better business model or they don't need such a large margin

They might own the building freehold.

Jimboss Wrote:-
They can't fine you for not declaring something as it is the sender that must declare the value of goods.
As a recipient you have no control over the senders declaration.
If you are receiving goods over $1000 and this value is correctly declared, sometimes you have to pay a charge, sometimes you don't. Sometimes you pay the bill to your shipping company (Toll, DHL, etc), sometimes it is to a shipping agent. I've never paid directly to the feds but I suppose that might happen if you file your own paperwork. I don't know.
Around 60-70% of the time when I am receiving a shipment declared at over $1000, it gets picked up through customs and appropriately taxed. I have had stuff come through and get missed, but such occasions seem to be rare in the scheme of things.
I find it really surprising that you come in all guns blazing complaining about government taxes but don't know the actual implications of customs when purchasing goods from overseas, whether it be commercially or even just a few overseas online store purchases here and there. I suppose on one hand it is better than hearing from a stakeholder in the process (i.e. Gerry Harvey) but on the other hand, very naive.

Don't get me wrong I'm sure that must be the day to day reality.

But when I read the guide Documentary Import Declaration Comprehensive Guide:-

Who must make an import declaration?
The owner of imported goods is required to make an import declaration. According to Customs law, an owner of imported goods may be the importer, someone who holds themselves out to be the owner, someone who has a beneficial interest in the goods or someone who has control of the goods.
and
Commercial documents relating to the goods must be retained and available for inspection for at least five years. Penalties apply where instances of non-compliance with Customs and Border Protection requirements are detected.

Combine with them saying, we 'may' combine separate parcels under $1,000 if you do it from the same supplier. (would be nice if the defined 'may').

Doesn't that mean that one day they will come knocking? Like an ATO audit.

ThePhil wrote: Doesn't that mean that one day they will come knocking? Like an ATO audit.

For someone campaigning to bring down the government one youtube view at a time, I figured you'd be more adept at google.

http://www.customs.gov.au/webdata/resou ... audits.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Customs does audit business, I do not believe that they possess the power or resources to audit private citizens.

Yea, there you go. Isn't that the debate? the general public can just import as they like under $1,000 but the local shops have to comply with customs laws. Which is 'may' combine parcels and the importer is responsible for everything. So what the local shops can do for their customers compared with the overseas ones can do is out of whack.

Notwithstanding that as you and SkOrPn say they don't seem to actually enforce these laws.

ThePhil wrote:Yea, there you go. Isn't that the debate? the general public can just import as they like under $1,000 but the local shops have to comply with customs laws. Which is 'may' combine parcels and the importer is responsible for everything. So what the local shops can do for their customers compared with the overseas ones can do is out of whack.

Notwithstanding that as you and SkOrPn say they don't seem to actually enforce these laws.

And here we return to 5 days ago.

Typically speaking, a shrewd businessperson optimize shipping costs. I.e. bigger orders, less often.

Typically speaking, a business does not order one item at a time for one customer from an overseas supplier.

This is where the debate is no longer a debate but one person talking about a mythical land where nothing makes sense and IDPC equates to a 49% tax, and ignoring the views of anyone who speaks of what happens in the real world.

Sure, the government taxes goods that come into the country. This tax ends up being somewhere between 15-20%. Not perfect, but it isn't what makes business uncompetitive either - other countries have similar or worse levels of tax. Suggesting otherwise is naive, or worse, a ploy to deceive for some sort of political gain.

Not really, I did concede 5 days ago if you get like 100 articles then the IDPC gets pretty negligible. (Must be a lot of fun saying to a customer, yes I will get that in for you just as soon as I get another 99 orders for that supplier). Even yourself you said that you get 30-40 deliveries a year under $1,000? Must only be say 5 items or so each time.

But if a shop gets like 90% of their ordering right (i.e. in bulk, indent), they are still going to be forced with the problem that a customer comes in for a part, maybe they broke something pretty specialised, and the shop just can't get it for them, for a reasonable price due in part to the constrictions the laws are placing on them.

Most shrewd businesspeople want to do everything they can for their customers and not steer them to the competition.

I'm not ignoring what happens in the real world, just everytime you say hang on this is the reality (which I conceed it probably is), there's a clear Customs law stating well...what the law is, did you check out what this said about who was responsible for the imported goods?
http://www.customs.gov.au/webdata/resou ... 012WEB.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just going with an assumption that they don't have the will to do an audit one day is pretty optimistic.

ThePhil wrote: But if a shop gets like 90% of their ordering right (i.e. in bulk, indent), they are still going to be forced with the problem that a customer comes in for a part, maybe they broke something pretty specialised, and the shop just can't get it for them, for a reasonable price due in part to the constrictions the laws are placing on them.

Most shrewd businesspeople want to do everything they can for their customers and not steer them to the competition.

Let's boil this down to the core issues at play here. And lets assume there are shops out there that deal with O/S suppliers, which seriously are the minority. Name a run of the mill local bike shop that orders their bread and butter product from overseas. Name one!

But assuming that this mythical shop does exist.

A mythical shop ordering goods from overseas would not special order one product for a customer. If they did, they would likely be doing so well knowing they have to absorb the extra shipping costs. This would not be a sustainable business practice whether or not there was an extra 10-20% slapped on by the government.

Wholesalers do not do free shipping deals like retailers. Shipping is by far the killer, not the taxes slapped on top.

The end.

Environmental impact?

Does a shop shipping something in via a distributor vs courier company from overseas have much variation on with petroleum use etc?

All the gear comes from overseas, so it's every shop, some may go through an importer some direct with the brand. But even if you go through an importer, the importer has to go through all the taxes etc.
And again if you said you get 30-40 sub $1,000 imports everyear (one every 10 days) I suppose the mythical shop is you?
The shipping for that Aussie shop will be the same as for the o/s shop, say wiggle. So the shipping costs cancel each other out, they are both up for very high freight costs.
Retailers don't do free shipping deals, just they build the price of the shipping into the final cost, same difference.
Then if both work on say 30% mark up, the o/s guys gets all of this and the Aussie guy say gets 10%, the other 20% or so is the taxes. So the Aussie guy is the working poor.

If the shipping was by far the killer then the overseas shops selling one thing at a time would be totally uncompetitive.

ThePhil wrote:...Which is 'may' combine parcels and the importer is responsible for everything...

They say they 'may' combine parcels so you don't feign surprise when they ping you after importing 27 separate $200 parcels to get round the $1,000 limit. It leaves it open to them to do so if they think you're taking advantage of the way the law is set up, to allow some low value imports without duty and GST, to get more than the system was designed to allow. There are roughly similar provisions in the taxation system. What it means is that it won't happen often (that is, Customs combining items) but don't blame us when it does because it will have been very obvious what you're up to.

Hey guys, check this Fin Review article out. Seems the low value threshold taskforce worked out a revenue break even point at $100, but the Productivity Commission had other thoughts. Things could get messy here, admin wise, for overseas purchases...

Stuey wrote:Hey guys, check this Fin Review article out. Seems the low value threshold taskforce worked out a revenue break even point at $100, but the Productivity Commission had other thoughts. Things could get messy here, admin wise, for overseas purchases...

and politically ... think about how many people now shop online and how they might react to not the 10% charge but the delays that will occur. Would you like to be a government backbencher of which ever persuasion if this was brought it in? I wouldn't. Gerry Harvey's vote versus 1,000s if not millions of online buyers vote.

Andrew

I'd suggest taxing imports under $1k would be more unpopular than the carbon tax.

jimboss wrote:I'd suggest taxing imports under $1k would be more unpopular than the carbon tax.

The what?

But, yes, I agree...

Stuey wrote:Hey guys, check this Fin Review article out. Seems the low value threshold taskforce worked out a revenue break even point at $100, but the Productivity Commission had other thoughts. Things could get messy here, admin wise, for overseas purchases...

Can someone post the article here, have to be a subscriber to view

rkelsen wrote:

jimboss wrote:I'd suggest taxing imports under $1k would be more unpopular than the carbon tax.

The what?

But, yes, I agree...

I know hey. Old mate Tony's cry of 'the carbon tax will make the sky fall in' relied on an early election, because the sky was never going to fall in.

jimboss wrote:

rkelsen wrote:

jimboss wrote:I'd suggest taxing imports under $1k would be more unpopular than the carbon tax.

The what?

But, yes, I agree...

I know hey. Old mate Tony's cry of 'the carbon tax will make the sky fall in' relied on an early election, because the sky was never going to fall in.

Just like the Government's claim of a "budget surplus" relies on an early election because we won't have the Fiscal Year 2012-13 Budget outcome until September of next year.

Ross wrote:

Stuey wrote:Hey guys, check this Fin Review article out. Seems the low value threshold taskforce worked out a revenue break even point at $100, but the Productivity Commission had other thoughts. Things could get messy here, admin wise, for overseas purchases...

Can someone post the article here, have to be a subscriber to view

Sorry Ross, I'm having some trouble. I have it in PDF format, but if I try to cut and paste the formatting is stuffed up.

If both sides got together to do it, then there would be no political loss.

ThePhil wrote:If both sides got together to do it, then there would be no political loss.

You are the most naive person in this thread.

Why not they always agree when it comes to sending young Australians to war.

ThePhil wrote:Why not they always agree when it comes to sending young Australians to war.

Cmon seriously, Godwin's Law FTW!

It's true though, if the lawmakers had of just seen this problem arising years ago, then they should have just quietly got on with changing the loophole, never would have been any sort of issue. Be better if they just told the ATO to create a fair and competitive tax collection system and took it out of the pollies hands.
A lot of overseas sites still would have been cheaper due to rents, wages, mark ups etc, but at least it would have been fair.